CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION. DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts

Transcription

1 United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters May 2014 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts GAO

2 May 2014 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts Highlights of GAO , a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study According to DOD, its U.S. infrastructure is vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change. These could affect DOD s readiness and fiscal exposure, and DOD has begun to plan for adaptation actions designed to improve infrastructure resilience. GAO was asked to assess DOD s actions to adapt its U.S. infrastructure to the challenges of climate change. This report (1) describes potential impacts identified by DOD that may affect its infrastructure; (2) evaluates DOD s efforts to conduct vulnerability assessments; (3) assesses how DOD is accounting for climate change impacts in certain planning efforts; and (4) evaluates the extent to which DOD incorporates adaptation into its infrastructure-investment efforts.gao reviewed DOD documents on climate change, infrastructure planning, and funding processes; interviewed cognizant officials; and visited or contacted a nongeneralizable sample of 15 sites in various regions and from each military department. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOD develop a plan and milestones for completing climate change vulnerability assessments of installations; provide further information to installation planners, clarifying actions that should be taken to account for climate change in planning documents; and clarify the processes used to compare military construction projects for funding, to include consideration of potential climate change impacts. DOD concurred with GAO s recommendations and explained how they will be implemented. View GAO with a video of flooding at a DOD installation. For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) or leporeb@gao.gov. What GAO Found In its Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, the Department of Defense (DOD) identified climate change phenomena such as rising temperatures and sea levels as potentially impacting its infrastructure, and officials at sites GAO visited or contacted noted actual impacts they had observed. For example, according to DOD officials, the combination of thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and rising sea levels on the Alaskan coast has increased coastal erosion at several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. Impacts on DOD s infrastructure from this erosion have included damaged roads, seawalls, and runways. In addition, officials on a Navy installation told GAO that sea level rise and resulting storm surge are the two largest threats to their waterfront infrastructure. For instance, they are concerned about possible storm surge during work on a submarine that will be cut in half while sitting in a dry dock. Officials explained that if salt water floods the submarine s systems, it could result in severe damage. DOD has begun to assess installations vulnerability to potential climate change impacts and directed its planners to incorporate consideration of climate change into certain installation planning efforts. Further, it is a DOD strategic goal to consider sustainability, including climate change adaptation, in its facility investment decisions. However, GAO identified some limitations with these efforts. Specifically: DOD has begun collecting data on historic and potential future vulnerabilities from coastal locations (installations and associated sites) and is developing regional sea-level rise scenarios for 704 coastal locations to be used following the collection of these data. However, it has not yet developed a plan or milestones for completing these tasks, including when it expects to finish data collection on a total of 7,591 locations worldwide. Without a plan, including interim milestones to gauge progress, DOD may not finish its assessments in a timely and complete manner. DOD guidance requires that both installation master planning and natural resources planning account for certain potential impacts of climate change, but the implementation of these requirements across the department varies. Installation planners said that they lack key definitions and updated guidance on construction and renovation going beyond current building codes to account for climate change. Without additional information, installation planners will be unlikely to consistently account for climate change impacts in their Master Plans and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans. Installation officials rarely propose climate change adaptation projects because the services processes for approving and funding military construction projects do not include climate change adaptation in the criteria used to rank potential projects. As a result, installation planners may believe that climate change adaptation projects are unlikely to successfully compete with other military construction projects for funding. Without clarification of these processes, DOD may face challenges in meeting its strategic goals and the services may miss opportunities to make their facilities more resilient to the potential impacts of climate change. United States Government Accountability Office

3 Contents Letter 1 Background 6 DOD Has Identified Climate Change Phenomena, Potential Impacts, and Potential Mission Vulnerabilities, and DOD Officials Have Observed Them at Selected U.S. Installations 11 DOD Has Begun Conducting Vulnerability Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on Its Installations, but Lack of Planning May Hamper Completion of Its Efforts 24 DOD Requires Selected Installation Planning Efforts for Existing and Future Infrastructure to Account for Climate Change Impacts, but Planners Lack Key Information 31 DOD Processes for Approving and Funding Infrastructure Projects Do Not Explicitly Account for Climate Change Adaptation 39 Conclusions 44 Recommendations for Executive Action 45 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 50 Appendix II Previous GAO Work on Federal Efforts to Address Climate Change Has Resulted in a Number of Recommendations for Improvement of These Efforts 53 Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 55 Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58 Related GAO Products 59 Tables Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United States 7 Page i

4 Figures Figure 1: Overrun area of Air Force runway impacted by erosion 13 Figure 2: Training Range in the Pacific 15 Figure 3: Wildfire on a training range in Alaska 16 Figure 4: Dry lakebed runway in the Southwestern United States under normal and flood conditions 17 Figure 5: Submarine in dry dock 19 Figure 6: Road Leading to Training Area in Alaska 20 Figure 7: Coastal Erosion near DOD Early Warning Site 21 Figure 8: Video Still Showing Damage to Infrastructure at Installation located in Southwestern United States 22 Figure 9: Army Training Area in Southwestern United States 23 Figure 10: Permafrost Tunnel Research Facility 38 Figure 11: Ice Embedded in Soil 38 Abbreviations Assessment Group DOD Roadmap Scenario Group Assessment Guidance Sub-Working Group Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap Coastal Assessment Regional Scenario Working This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii

5 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC May 30, 2014 Congressional Requesters: The Department of Defense (DOD) manages a global real-estate portfolio that includes over 555,000 facilities and 28 million acres of land with a replacement value of close to $850 billion. Within the United States, the department s extensive infrastructure of bases and training ranges, 1 which is critical to maintaining military readiness, extends across all regions, as well as Alaska, and Hawaii. This infrastructure is vulnerable to the potential impacts of climate change. 2 Scientific projections and observations indicate that these potential impacts include increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, melting permafrost and other gradual changes, as well as the potential for increases in the frequency and severity of extreme events. We have previously reported that while it is not possible to link any individual weather event to climate change, these events provide insight into the potential climate-related vulnerabilities the United States faces. 3 In the Third National Climate Assessment, 4 the U.S. 1 For the purposes of this report, we define infrastructure as all buildings and permanent installations necessary for the support, redeployment, and operations of (e.g., barracks, headquarters, airfields, communications facilities, stores, port installations, and maintenance stations). Infrastructure includes utility systems; training and testing ranges and areas; and transportation systems (e.g., roads, bridges). Also, to the extent that DOD officials considered built or natural infrastructure outside of a facility (e.g., utility lines or barrier islands, respectively) in their climate-change adaptation planning for the facility, we included this infrastructure in the scope of the report. 2 According to DOD, climate change is any given change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. 3 GAO, Extreme Weather Events: Limiting Federal Fiscal Exposure and Increasing the Nation s Resilience, GAO T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2014). 4 The Third National Climate Assessment was released in May Page 1

6 Global Change Research Program 5 states that all regions of the country will face climate change impacts that affect natural ecosystems as well as the nation s infrastructure. In addition, infrastructure across the United States is being adversely affected already by phenomena associated with climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours, and extreme heat according to the assessment. The assessment further notes that proactively preparing for climate change can reduce impacts, while also facilitating a more-rapid and efficient response to changes as they happen. GAO, DOD, and others have cited the risks posed by climate change and the need to engage in adaptation activities. In February 2013, we added the federal government s efforts to manage its fiscal exposure to the 6 effects of climate change to our High Risk list, noting that the federal government s role as a property owner exposes it to significant fiscal risk. We also noted that the government currently lacks a shared understanding of strategic priorities and adequate interagency coordination to adapt to a changing climate. DOD has noted the challenges that the impacts of climate change may pose for the department, including to its facilities. In the 2010 Quadrennial 7 Defense Review, DOD stated that many coastal installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels and that the 5 The U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The Global Change Research Program began as a presidential initiative in 1989 and was established by law in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No , 103 (1990)). The U.S. Global Change Research Program participating agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the Smithsonian Institution. 6 Limiting the Federal Government s Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks in GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013). 7 Section 118 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States, every 4 years, with a view toward determining and expressing the nation s defense strategy and establishing a defense program for the next 20 years. Page 2

7 department needs to complete a comprehensive assessment of all its installations to determine mission impacts and to adapt as required. In its fiscal year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (Roadmap), 8 DOD noted that the department s ability to adapt to climate change will be a significant factor in its ability to fulfill its missions in the future, and that climate-related effects already are being observed at DOD installations throughout the United States. Furthermore, the Roadmap states that including climate change and climate variability considerations in the department s planning processes will enhance operational and infrastructure resilience. In its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD reaffirmed its 2010 assessment of the risks that climate change impacts pose to the department s infrastructure and its finding that DOD needs to adapt as required. Given its extensive infrastructure, DOD has begun to plan for climate change impacts on its infrastructure. We were asked to assess DOD s progress in taking action to adapt its 9 U.S. infrastructure to the challenges of climate change. In this report, we (1) describe the climate change phenomena and associated impacts and mission vulnerabilities that DOD has identified; (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD has conducted, or plans to conduct, vulnerability assessments of climate change impacts on installation infrastructure; (3) assess how DOD is accounting for climate change impacts in installations selected planning efforts for existing and future infrastructure; and (4) evaluate how DOD has incorporated adaptation to climate change impacts into infrastructure investment efforts. To describe DOD s efforts to identify climate change phenomena and associated impacts and vulnerabilities on its infrastructure, we reviewed documents such as the 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews, DOD s fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, and the Roadmap. We also reviewed ongoing studies from DOD s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program on potential climate 8 DOD s Roadmap is an annex to its Fiscal Year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. DOD developed the Roadmap in response to Executive Order on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance that directs federal agencies to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate change on the agency s operations and mission in both the short and long term. 9 For the purposes of this report, the United States consists of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the United States. Page 3

8 change impacts at DOD locations, and met with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military department headquarters. To gain insight into examples of climate change phenomena that have or may impact installation infrastructure in the future and that may lead to mission vulnerabilities, we visited or contacted officials at a nongeneralizable sample of installations, learned about or observed impacts on infrastructure, and collected key documentation such as afteraction reports describing impacts and mission vulnerabilities of climate change phenomena. The nongeneralizable sample of installations that we selected consisted of 15 locations, and included a variety of geographic locations and each of the military departments. The selected locations had been or were expected by DOD to be impacted by climate change. Although the information we collected was not representative of all installations, we determined that the selection of these installations would provide valuable insights for our review. To determine the extent to which DOD has assessed or plans to assess the vulnerability of its facilities to the potential impacts of climate change, we reviewed DOD s 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and Roadmap to determine DOD s goals for conducting vulnerability assessments. To determine the extent to which the department has completed such assessments, we reviewed DOD documentation that discusses vulnerability assessments and interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and military departments to learn about DOD s assessment efforts. In addition, we observed meetings of DOD s key organizations involved in these assessment efforts. We also reviewed project management practices of high-performing organizations, comparing DOD s assessment efforts to these practices in order to determine the extent to which DOD has incorporated them in its assessment efforts. To determine the extent to which DOD is accounting for climate change impacts in selected installation planning efforts for infrastructure, we identified the requirements for doing so by reviewing DOD s Unified Facilities Criteria for Installation Master Planning 10 and DOD Instruction that set these requirements for Installation Master Planning 10 Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria , Installation Master Planning (May 15, 2012). 11 Department of Defense Instruction , Natural Resources Conservation Program (Mar. 18, 2011). Page 4

9 (Master Plans) and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, respectively. We also met with officials from the selected installations who were responsible for the Master Plan and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans to learn about how they incorporated the requirements into their processes. We also compared DOD s requirements with Master Plans and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans from the nongeneralizable sample of 15 installations we visited or contacted. In addition, we reviewed The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to information and communications, 12 and compared those standards to DOD s practices related to Installation Master Planning and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans. To determine the extent to which DOD accounts for climate change impacts when making infrastructure project funding decisions, we reviewed DOD s fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan and Roadmap to determine DOD s policies and goals for integrating climate change adaptation actions into facility investment decision processes. We also interviewed DOD officials at the military department headquarters level and at the selected installations we visited or contacted to determine the extent to which the military departments have implemented climate change adaptation efforts at the installation level. In addition, we reviewed examples of military department processes used for approval and funding of potential military construction projects. Finally, we compared the extent to which the processes incorporate climate change adaptation with DOD s policies and goals on integrating adaptation actions into facility investment decisions. We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to May 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 12 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). Page 5

10 Background Adaptation and Climate Change We have previously reported 13 that changes in the Earth s climate attributable to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases may have significant environmental and economic impacts in the United States. 14 Proposed responses to climate change include reducing greenhouse gas emissions through regulation, promoting low-emissions technologies, and adapting to the possible impacts by planning and improving protective infrastructure. In recent years, climate change adaptation has begun to receive more attention because as we and others have reported the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere are expected to continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of efforts to control emissions. 15 Climate change adaptation differs from mitigation, which is focused on reducing emissions. In this report, we focus on adaptation efforts. For a summary of our previous work on U.S. government climate change adaptation efforts and related recommendations for improvement of these efforts, see appendix II; we have also included a list of related GAO products at the end of this report. 13 GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2009). 14 Major greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO 2); methane (CH 4); nitrous oxide (N 2O); and synthetic gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). 15 Other organizations include the National Research Council and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The National Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates the activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. Page 6

11 Current Understanding of Global Climate Change Is Based on Both Observations and Computer Model Projections According to the Third National Climate Assessment, scientists current understanding of how the global climate is changing is based on both observations and projections reached through the use of computer simulations, using global climate models, that account for a variety of independent factors. 16 The models used to project changes are becoming more sophisticated as scientists incorporate further variables into them. Generally, the models projections indicate that higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses will result in greater climate change, thus increasing the degree to which the nation, including its infrastructure, is exposed to risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty remains about projections of future changes and most projections indicate ranges of change rather than specific figures. The effects of increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to have varying impacts in the United States (see table 1). Table 1: Current and Projected Impacts of Climate Change in the United States Category Temperature Precipitation Extreme weather events Current and projected impacts U.S. average temperature has risen fewer than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years. It is projected to rise more in the future how much more depends primarily on the amount of heattrapping gases emitted globally and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. Precipitation in the U.S. has increased an average of about 5 percent over the past 50 years. Projections of future precipitation generally indicate that northern areas will become wetter and southern areas, particularly in the West, will become drier. The amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in the past century, and this trend is very likely to continue, with the largest increases in the wettest places. Some types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. Source: Adapted from U.S. Global Change Research Program and National Research Council data. 16 Global climate models are global, three-dimensional computer models of the climate system that can be used to simulate climate change. The models are highly complex and they represent the effects of such factors as absorptive properties of atmospheric water vapor, greenhouse gas concentrations, clouds, annual and daily solar heating, ocean temperatures, and ice boundaries. The most-recent global climate models include global representations of the atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. Page 7

12 Executive Orders and DOD Strategic Documents Direct DOD to Plan for and Adapt to Climate Change At the government-wide level, the President has released two executive orders directing agencies to plan for and adapt to certain impacts of climate change. In 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514, 17 calling for federal agencies to take a number of actions related to climate change. In addition, the President s Council on Environmental Quality issued implementing instructions directing federal agencies to, among other things, establish an agency climate change adaptation policy, complete a high-level analysis of agency vulnerability to climate change, and deliver to the council and the Office of Management and Budget a climate adaptation plan for implementation in fiscal year In response to these implementing instructions, DOD developed the highlevel Roadmap that it included as an appendix to its fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. We discuss both this plan and the Roadmap in greater detail below. 19 On November 1, 2013, the President released Executive Order 13653, which directs federal agencies to develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive agency climate change adaptation plans that address a number of efforts. The order requires agency plans to integrate consideration of climate change into their operations and overall mission objectives. Also, the order stipulates that the plans should include, among other things, a description of how agencies will consider the need to improve climate adaptation, with respect to, among other things, real-property investments, through actions such as updating agency policies for leasing, building upgrades, relocation of existing facilities and equipment, and construction of new facilities. As we noted previously, DOD has in several strategic documents cited the negative effects that climate change could have on its infrastructure and operations. In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD stated that the department s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea training and test space and that, consequently, DOD 17 Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance (Oct. 5, 2009). 18 Instructions for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation Planning in Accordance with Executive Order Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, (Mar. 4, 2011). 19 Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change (Nov. 1, 2013). Page 8

13 must complete an assessment of all its installations to determine potential climate change impacts on its missions and adapt as required. Subsequently, in the 2011 National Military Strategy, DOD s characterization of the strategic environment included climate change as a potentially serious impact. Also, in its fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, DOD states that climate change can directly impact military installations, infrastructure, and operations by limiting the availability and quality of training ranges and other lands needed for operations, and by increasing impacts on infrastructure such as flood and fire hazards and vulnerability of utilities. In addition, in its 2013 Arctic Strategy, DOD recognized that climate change will increase access and activity in the region, potentially altering the security environment in which it operates. Further, in its 2014 Arctic Roadmap, the Navy acknowledges the role that climate change plays in several national security arenas. For example, the Navy states that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world and as a result significant retreat of sea ice will accelerate throughout this century, causing previously unreachable areas to be increasingly open for maritime use. 20 Finally, in its 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD states that the impacts of climate change may undermine the capacity of the department s domestic installations to support training activities. Several DOD Organizations Play a Role in the Department s Climate Change Adaptation Efforts DOD and each of the military departments have given certain organizations key roles in the department s climate change adaptation efforts. DOD has designated the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics as the department s Senior Sustainability Officer responsible for ensuring the effective and successful implementation of the department s strategic sustainability initiatives described in the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan, which includes climate change adaptation. Also, DOD has established a governance structure to facilitate meeting the department s sustainability goals. Reporting to the Senior Sustainability Officer, there is a Senior Sustainability Council that consists of representatives from the military departments and other DOD organizations. A set of committees and working groups has been established with the goal of executing the goals of the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. The committees and working groups cover a wide range of sustainability 20 GAO recently reported on maritime infrastructure related to commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic. GAO, Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2014). Page 9

14 topics, including transportation and fuels, solid waste and recycling, and climate change adaptation for DOD infrastructure. We discuss a number of these working groups in more detail later in the report. In addition, each military department has both designated a sustainability officer with the responsibility for ensuring the effective and successful implementation of the department s strategic sustainability initiatives as outlined in the fiscal year 2012 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan and appointed representatives to serve on the committees and working groups described above. Also, certain organizations within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each military department play a key role in the development of climate change adaptation policy. These organizations include the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Logistics; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment. DOD also works with other federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on issues related to climate change adaptation efforts. For example, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program is a partnership between DOD, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy to address environmental issues at DOD and at the Department of Energy through investing in a broad spectrum of basic and applied research. Page 10

15 DOD Has Identified Climate Change Phenomena, Potential Impacts, and Potential Mission Vulnerabilities, and DOD Officials Have Observed Them at Selected U.S. Installations In its Roadmap, DOD describes five categories of climate change phenomena and notes that climate-related effects are already being observed at DOD installations throughout the United States. DOD further indicates that these phenomena could translate into potential climate change impacts and vulnerabilities that could adversely affect infrastructure across all of DOD s facilities. Although officials at the locations we visited or contacted generally agreed that individual weather events such as a single storm cannot be tied directly to changes in the climate, these officials noted that DOD facilities and infrastructure are vulnerable to climate change phenomena and recognized that climate change may make these types of phenomena more frequent or severe. DOD s Roadmap Identifies Five Categories of Climate Change Phenomena, Potential Impacts, and Potential Mission Vulnerabilities DOD describes five climate change phenomena in its Roadmap: (1) rising temperatures; (2) changes in precipitation patterns; (3) increasing storm frequency and intensity (coastal and inland); (4) rising sea levels and associated storm surge; and (5) changes in ocean temperature, circulation, salinity, and acidity. Further, in the Roadmap, DOD associates each phenomenon with potential impacts or vulnerabilities to its infrastructure. For instance, DOD associates rising temperatures with potential climate change impacts such as thawing permafrost and wildfire risk. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission vulnerabilities such as reduced military vehicle access and potential loss of cold weather training venues. In addition, DOD links changes in precipitation patterns with potential climate change impacts such as changes in the number of consecutive days of high or low precipitation as well as increases in the extent and duration of droughts, with an associated increase in the risk of wildfire. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission vulnerabilities such as reduced live-fire training due to drought and increased wildfire risk, reduced water availability, and increased flood control or erosion prevention measures. Further, DOD associates increasing storm frequency and intensity (coastal and inland) with potential climate change impacts such as flooding, soil and vegetation loss, and wind damage. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission vulnerabilities such as temporary or prolonged disruption of military operations or test and training activities, increased maintenance costs, and damage to coastal infrastructure. DOD associates rising sea levels and associated storm surge with potential climate change impacts such as damage to physical infrastructure and salt water intrusion. Page 11

16 According to the Roadmap, these impacts may result in mission vulnerabilities such as increased cost of infrastructure modification, for instance raising piers, impacts to future land availability, and siting of new construction. DOD associates changes in ocean temperature, circulation, salinity, and acidity with potential climate change impacts such as coral reef losses that may negatively impact the reef s ability to mitigate the effects of storm surge. According to the Roadmap, this may result in mission vulnerabilities such as increased cost of infrastructure reinforcement to withstand increased storm intensities and impacts to shore training and ranges. Installation Officials Provided Examples of Potential Mission Vulnerabilities Associated with Impacts to Infrastructure Rising Temperatures During our site visits, installation officials identified potential climate change phenomena experienced at their installations; 21 provided examples of potential impacts on installation infrastructure; discussed potential mission vulnerabilities, including potential impacts to military readiness; and provided the following examples of these impacts. At 8 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, 22 officials stated that they had observed rising temperatures and associated potential impacts or mission vulnerabilities, as described by DOD in the Roadmap. For example, the combination of thawing permafrost, decreasing sea ice, and rising sea level on the Alaskan coast have led to an increase in coastal erosion at several Air Force radar early warning and communication installations. According to installation officials, this erosion has damaged roads, utility infrastructure, seawalls, and runways. For example, at one radar early warning installation, 40 feet of shoreline has been lost as a result of erosion and the erosion has damaged half of the runway. As a result, only small planes or helicopters are able to land in this location, as opposed to larger planes that could land on the runway when it is fully 21 We have reported that while climate change is typically described in terms of average annual changes in temperature or precipitation, it is also associated with shifts in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events to which physical infrastructure is particularly vulnerable. See GAO, Climate Change: Future Federal Adaptation Efforts Could Better Support Local Infrastructure Decision Makers, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2013). 22 Officials at several locations told us that they observed multiple types of what DOD has identified as potential climate change phenomena, potential impacts, or potential vulnerabilities. Page 12

17 functional. This means that access to the radar installation is limited. At another radar early warning installation, increased erosion has damaged a seawall, allowing increasingly large waves to damage the overrun area of a runway 23 (see fig. 1). According to installation officials, daily operations at these types of remote radar installations are at risk due to potential loss of runways, and such installations located close to the coastline could be at risk of radar failure if erosion of the coastline continues. Air Force headquarters officials noted that if one or more of these sites is not operational, there is a risk that the DOD early warning system will operate with diminished functionality. However, the system is designed to operate with the loss of one or more sites, as other sites can back up those lost. Figure 1: Overrun area of Air Force runway impacted by erosion Note: Increased coastal erosion has allowed waves to damage the overrun area of the runway at an Air Force radar early warning installation. 23 According to Air Force officials, overrun areas at the end of runways serve as emergency space to slowly stop planes that overrun the runway during landing or takeoff. Page 13

18 Also, officials at an Army installation told us that rising temperatures are impacting certain training activities because of thawing permafrost. They explained that in the summer of 2003, they experienced an unusually warm winter that caused permafrost to thaw and forced DOD to halt training for approximately 3 weeks because the ground was too soft to traverse. Officials stated that if temperatures continue to rise as projected, permafrost thawing could become more severe. This could further impact DOD training and may impact military readiness because DOD could not easily find another location to replicate the training offered in this area. Specifically, thawing permafrost has caused holes to open up in the ground of a drop zone. 24 These holes make certain areas of the drop zone unsafe for airborne training. As a result, this type of training may be limited. This is especially significant given that thawing permafrost occurs during the warmer months when there is the heaviest demand for training and this is the only drop zone in the training area. Further, according to officials, thawing permafrost may impact species migration patterns as a result of potential changes to wetlands. Officials told us that depending on local topography and the makeup of local soil the loss of permafrost can either make land drier or wetter. 25 These changes can degrade existing wetlands or create new ones. These officials explained that because of laws and regulations that govern DOD s management of wetlands and the species that inhabit them, the movement of wetlands and associated species to new areas may limit DOD s ability to train in certain sections of a training area. Further, officials told us that they have noticed an increase in freezing rain due to rising temperatures. In the past, colder temperatures typically produced snow as opposed to freezing rain. This rain has affected targets that now require additional maintenance. Specifically, ice buildup from freezing rain can lock targets moving parts, breaking the targets or stopping them from properly functioning. Depending on the severity of the ice buildup, this may result in delays to training schedules. 24 According to DOD, a drop zone is a specific area upon which airborne troops, equipment, or supplies are air-dropped. 25 According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, permafrost is soil or rock, or both, that has remained below 32 F for more than 2 years. Alaska is covered by different types of permafrost: (1) continuous, where more than 80 percent of the ground surface is underlain by permafrost (found in very high latitudes); (2) discontinuous, where permafrost exists in certain areas depending on the vegetation, soil type, moisture, and exposure to solar radiation (Fairbanks is in the discontinuous permafrost zone); and (3) sporadic, where less than 30 percent of the ground surface is underlain by permafrost. Page 14

19 Changes in Precipitation Patterns At 9 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they had observed changes in precipitation patterns and associated potential impacts. For example, officials at an installation in the Pacific told us that in 2008 they experienced 43 straight days of rain that resulted in mud slides and flooding that damaged base infrastructure, including base housing. By contrast, officials provided examples of impacts from reduced precipitation such as drought and wildfire risk and identified potential mission vulnerabilities such as reduced live-fire training as described by DOD in the Roadmap. For instance, officials also told us that for the last 3 to 4 years, there has been a continuous drought at another nearby installation, which has led to an increased number of wildfires in the area. As a result of a 2012 wildfire, officials were unable to access or move ammunition at that installation for 4 days. At a third installation in the same area, officials explained that these drought conditions and the threat of wildfire have limited the types of ammunition that can be used on certain training ranges (see fig. 2). As a result, units have had to spend extra time and money to travel to other installations to complete their required training. Figure 2: Training Range in the Pacific Note: Drought conditions and an increased risk of wildfire limited the types of ammunition that units could use on this training range. Page 15

20 Further, at an Army training area, officials told us drought contributed to wildfires in 2013 and that units that had planned to train in the area experienced several mission impacts (see fig. 3). Officials told us that they had to postpone training from June 2013 to September or October 2013, and that the fires smoke limited units use of certain weapons systems in training. For example, there was no live-fire training allowed in one training area for 2 months. In addition, there was a decrease in the realism of training conducted. For instance, during an exercise that coincided with the fires, an official explained that aircraft could not deliver ordnance. The fires also affected landing conditions, forcing aircraft to save fuel, and thus reducing the amount of tactical training they were able to conduct. Figure 3: Wildfire on a training range in Alaska Note: Drought conditions contributed to a 2013 fire that limited the use of certain weapons systems and training activities. Increased Storm Frequency and Intensity At 12 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they had observed increasing storm frequency and intensity and associated potential impacts such as flooding, or mission vulnerabilities such as Page 16

21 temporary or prolonged disruption of military operations, as described by DOD in the Roadmap. For example, officials at an installation located in the desert Southwest explained that flash flooding due to an intense rain event had made one of their emergency runways unusable. According to these officials, it took about 8 months for the flooding to subside. During that time, aircraft performing training and testing missions could not use the emergency runway (see fig. 4). Although intense rain events such as the one mentioned above occur periodically in the desert Southwest, DOD recognizes in its Roadmap that increases in heavy downpours are projected to increase as a result of climate change. Figure 4: Dry lakebed runway in the Southwestern United States under normal and flood conditions Note: A dry lakebed in the Southwestern United States serves as an emergency runway for DOD training and testing missions (left); an official measures the water depth after a flash flooding event that inundated the same dry lake bed (right). Rising Sea Levels and Associated Storm Surge At 7 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials stated that they had observed rising sea levels and associated storm surge and associated potential impacts, or mission vulnerabilities, as described by DOD in the Roadmap. Officials on a Navy installation told us that sea level rise and resulting storm surge are the two largest threats to their waterfront infrastructure. For example, they explained that they were planning to lengthen a Los Angeles class submarine to convert it to a training platform and that this will entail cutting the submarine in half. During this process, the submarine will sit in a dry dock with its interior Page 17

22 open. Officials explained that they were concerned about possible storms and associated storm surge, noting that if salt water was allowed to flood the submarine s systems, it could result in severe damage. Such damage would delay completion of the submarine s lengthening by 3 to 4 months. Officials from another Navy shipyard we visited stated that flooding of a submarine in dry dock could result in catastrophic damage inside the submarine and additional, severe damage to equipment on the floor of the dry dock (see fig. 5). Thus, flooding of the submarine could result in a delay in the use of the submarine for training and fiscal exposure for DOD. Because of the perceived risk of storm surge and the possibility of the submarine s systems being exposed to flood waters, shipyard officials are considering whether to raise the current floodwall to protect the submarine. 26 According to a Navy official, raising the height of the wall is a risk-reduction strategy to address the frequency of extreme weather events happening at the shipyard. 26 Officials told us that they are planning to raise the floodwall to withstand a 500-year flood. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this type of flood has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year. The current floodwall is designed to withstand a 100-year flood, or a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the term 100-year flood is a statistical designation, meaning that there is a 1-in-100 chance that a flood this size will happen during any year. According to installation officials, the shipyard typically prepares for a 100-year flood. Therefore, preparing for a 500-year flood represents preparation for moresevere flooding. Page 18

23 Figure 5: Submarine in dry dock Note: A Los Angeles class submarine sits in a dry dock while it undergoes repairs. Changes in Ocean Temperatures, Circulation, Salinity, and Acidity At 3 out of 15 locations we visited or contacted, officials either stated or noted that they had observed changes in ocean temperature, circulation, salinity, and acidity at their installations and that these changes may result in impacts, or mission vulnerabilities, as described by DOD in the Roadmap. For example, an official at a Navy installation explained that changes in ocean temperature may have caused a protected turtle species to nest on a section of beach where it previously had not, making this section unavailable for potential training activities during certain parts of the year. Also, the encroachment plan of a Marine Corps installation we visited states that increases in ocean temperature could lead to degradation of coral reefs in the waters offshore of the installation. As discussed above, in the Roadmap DOD associates changes in ocean temperature and acidity with potential climate change impacts such as coral-reef losses that may undermine the reef s ability to mitigate the effects of storm surge on the installation and may lead to associated mission vulnerabilities. Page 19

24 Installation Officials Provided Examples of Potential Climate Change Impacts That May Result in Increased Fiscal Exposure for DOD More frequent and more severe extreme weather events and associated impacts may result in increased fiscal exposure for DOD. During our site visits, installation officials identified costs when known that are associated with potential impacts to infrastructure identified by DOD in its Roadmap. These costs are associated with both relatively common types of infrastructure and unique facilities. According to our discussions with officials, there is a cost to rehabilitate common types of infrastructure, such as runways and target equipment. For example, officials explained that when coastal erosion shortened a radar site s runway, DOD personnel had to access the site by helicopter, instead of the planes that personnel could have used with a full-length runway. This resulted in increased costs for DOD because reaching the site by helicopter is more expensive, according to officials. In another example, when an increase in the amount of freezing rain resulted in an increased requirement for maintenance of target equipment, officials reported an added expense of target repair. Further, there are costs associated with roads and open fields impacted by thawing permafrost. For instance, officials estimate the cost to repair two gravel roads (see fig. 6) and fill holes in one drop zone to be more than $500,000. According to officials, if these types of impacts increase in frequency or severity due to climate change, DOD s routine maintenance costs are likely to increase. Figure 6: Road Leading to Training Area in Alaska Note: Thawing permafrost results in muddy roads that reduce access to training areas (left); the same road after it was regraveled (right). Page 20